• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

The FAA Air Marshall Qualification Drill

That's not one small data point. ---jose
One shooter out of all Air Marshals is one small data point, as is four shooters out of all Air Marshals.

I disagree based on their minimum qualification standards.---jose
As Rob B. said, I don’t see when and by whom we “civilians” are commonly afforded a higher level of protection by our government?


jkelly
 
This thread has sure gotten some attention.

Here is my thought on the subject. Everyone of us has a job and work with team members/staff etc. and we are all held to an operating SOP standard correct. And in that group there are the 1% ters and the rest of the pack and there are those of them that only do what the minimum requirement is and the rest my only do what they think there paid to do and not lift a finger for more than that.

If "FAM" are in the norm of any given prof than this would also hold true for meeting baseline standards and those that will continue to exceed them. And look for more.

I have buddies that are LEO's and some are average and some are exceptional and that is a matter of fact. Here are two quick comparisons.
The DEA dude is extreme in his standards (trains with anything/anyone that will keep him coming home) well I guess if your always in the s*$t everyday, and you really want to come home every night then great for him.I'll travel with him anywhere anytime.
And there is local LEO buddy who recently got promoted from Sgt to LT. has it in his mind now that all he has to do is qual and he is doing his part. Desk job mid shift commander. By the way that is all he has ever done (base Qualification) don't get we wrong here but who do you think I would prefer to travel with??

The guys I train with like JimC. Big Daddy 45 etc we have each others backs. And push each other to succeed and grow.

As per usual I will cover my own 6 and be Good to Go with my skills/training etc when I travel. And if there is a FAM on my flight then he has Back up.

Being a FAM is a special chosen assignment and those who meet the base standards should always be looking to exceed them. They have to be on top of there game 110% 24/7.

Respectfully
 
Last edited:
Since you disagree, what would you suggest is the highest level of protection commonly afforded normal civilians?
I want no protection from the .gov. Only the freedom to protect myself however I see fit.

But to answer your direct question, no, I don't find someone who can just pass the shooting test outlined in the original post to be the highest level of protection. If your average IDPA mid level shooter can do it, it ain't that tough.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One shooter out of all Air Marshals is one small data point, as is four shooters out of all Air Marshals.

jkelly
If what the original poster said is correct, THE FEDERAL AIR MARSHAL SHOOTING STANDARDS ARE FREAKING EASY.

That is all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I want no protection from the .gov. Only the freedom to protect myself however I see fit.

But to answer your direct question, no, I don't find someone who can just pass the shooting test outlined in the original post to be the highest level of protection. If your average IDPA mid level shooter can do it, it ain't that tough.
The statement was "highest level of protection" provided by the government to ordinary citizens, not a general statement comparing government provided to self provided protection. Since you disagreed with the statement, could you please explain what higher level of protection the government provides to ordinary citizens?
 
jose,
My statement was that the shootings skills of the four Air Marshals I knew (superficially at best) was one small data point and that while “under the protection” of an Air Marshal we were being afforded about the highest level of “protection” commonly given to we “normal” civilians.

You disagreed with that, but have not been able to offer a good argument to the contrary.


jkelly
 
Guys
Let us look at the facts again. The drill that I posted was the original qual drill. It was perceived to be too tough. It was dumbed down. The only reason a test is ever dumbed down is because not enough people are passing it to meet the needs for Air Marshalls. Jkelly mentioned 4 exceptional FAM shooters. I am sure that there are many more than the 4 that he cited. From a statistics viewpoint these 4 shooters and the others are insignificant when considering all of the air marshalls that must first pass the test and also requalify at some regular interval.
 
jose,
My statement was that the shootings skills of the four Air Marshals I knew (superficially at best) was one small data point and that while “under the protection” of an Air Marshal we were being afforded about the highest level of “protection” commonly given to we “normal” civilians.

You disagreed with that, but have not been able to offer a good argument to the contrary.
A simple logical sequence:

1. The assertion has been made that FAM protection is the best ordinary citizens receive from the govt.

2. Jose rejects this assertion.

3. If assertion #1 is false, there is a form of federal protection offered to ordinary citizens that is better that that provided by FAMs.

4. Jose has not yet provided the example referenced in #3 that would exist if his rejection of #1 above were accurate.
 
Jkelly mentioned 4 exceptional FAM shooters. I am sure that there are many more than the 4 that he cited. From a statistics viewpoint these 4 shooters and the others are insignificant when considering all of the air marshalls that must first pass the test and also requalify at some regular interval.---JimConway
That is why I qualified the four shooters as a small data point and not representative of the Air Marshals as a whole.


Respectfully,

jkelly
 
You sure do know how to belabor a point.---JimConway
Occasionally you have to repeat yourself to be understood. (Not a slap at you)

BTW, what was the point that you are trying to make?---JimConway
Please see post #26


Respectfully,

jkelly
 
jkelly
If what you said about finest protection for "civilians" was a "tongue in cheek" remark, I understand you. If not, please explain.---JimConway
JimConway,
I didn’t mean that as tongue and cheek and I didn’t say “finest”. What I did say was:
…I would guess that when unarmed and “under the protection” of an Air Marshal, that we are being given about the highest level of “protection” commonly afforded we “normal” civilians.---Me

By that I meant, I guess that we “normal” civilians are not commonly afforded protection by a LEO agency with both a more difficult shooting requirement and in a smaller civilian to LEO ratio.


Respectfully,

jkelly
 
As a point of fact, numerous court Cases have held that LEOs have no obligation to protect civilians. Their only obligation is to uphold the law
 
As a point of fact, numerous court Cases have held that LEOs have no obligation to protect civilians. Their only obligation is to uphold the law---JimConway
Yes I know. But if that were relevent to the argument then it wouldn't matter how poorly the Air Marshals could shoot.


Respectully,

jkelly
 
I think that you misunderstand a FAM's main duty. That duty is to keep the aircraft from being used as weapon. Remember that there were fighters not to far from the plane (the last plane) that crashed. If you think they were there to lead it away from prime targets, you are misguided. They would have shot it down if it strayed anywhere near something important. So much for passenger safety.
That is not to say that a good FAM's actions could or would not make the passengers and crew safer.
 
I think that you misunderstand a FAM's main duty. That duty is to keep the aircraft from being used as weapon.---JimConway
I would guess the presence of a Flight Marshal would only decrease the likelihood of a plane crash that you would have died in anyway.


Respectfully,

jkelly
 
Last edited:
Excerpt from FAM Govt Report

Changes to the Training
Curriculum Helped
Expedite Deployment


To deploy the requisite number of air marshals by the Deputy Secretary’s
July 2002 deadline, the Service revised and abbreviated its training
program. From October 2001 through July 2002, it modified the air marshal
curriculum incrementally, eventually reducing the original 14-week
program to about 5 weeks for candidates without prior law enforcement
experience and about 1 week for candidates with such experience. The
revised curriculum was designed to provide candidates with the basic law
enforcement knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform their
duties as air marshals, including knowledge of the Service’s rules and
regulations, physical skills, and basic and advanced marksmanship. The
curriculum no longer included certain elements of the original training
program, such as driving skills and cockpit familiarization, because these
were not deemed critical for air marshals to perform their duties. The
curriculum also eliminated a 1-week’s visit to an airline and some
instruction in the Service’s policies and procedures, which was to be
provided on the job.

Moreover, although the curriculum retained
instruction in both basic and advanced marksmanship, air marshal
candidates no longer had to pass an advanced marksmanship test to qualify for employment.

Candidates were still required to pass a basic test 13
with a minimum score of 255 out of a possible 300—the highest
qualification standard for any federal law enforcement agency, according
to the Service.


To provide all the newly hired air marshals with needed skills, beyond the
basic abilities the Service determined were critical for immediate
deployment, the Service instituted a new 4-week advanced training course
in October 2002. All air marshals hired from October 2001 through July
2002, regardless of their previous law enforcement experience, were
required to complete the course by January 2004. This course includes
some elements, such as emergency evacuation and flight simulator
training, that the Service did not include in the 5-week course because,
although it considered the elements important for air marshals to carry out
their mission, it did not consider them critical for immediate deployment.

In addition, the course provides further training in advanced
marksmanship skills. Air marshals hired after August 2002 attend this
advanced training course after completing their basic training. The Service
has developed a centralized tracking system to ensure that all air marshals
take this course.
Although the Service is now providing additional marksmanship training, its decision not to restore the advanced marksmanship test
14 as a qualification standard for employment has proved controversial.

Passing this test would require candidates to demonstrate their speed and
accuracy in a confined environment similar to the environment on board
an aircraft.


The DOT IG’s report suggested that the Service needed to
adopt a firearms qualification standard that was more stringent and
comprehensive than the basic firearms qualifying test. The Service
disagreed, emphasizing that its minimum score is the most stringent in
federal law enforcement and adding that its 4-week course provides
further training in advanced firearms skills. Our review of the Service’s
documentation confirmed that instruction in advanced marksmanship is a
critical part of this training, even though passing this element is no longer
a condition of employment.

In August 2003, the Service reported that proposed cutbacks in its training
funds would require it to extend the date for all air marshals hired fromOctober 2001 through July 2002 to complete the 4-week advanced course
from January 2004 to mid-2004. According to DHS, the Service’s transfer to
ICE will not adversely affect either the funding for air marshals’ training or
the schedule for newly hired air marshals to complete the 4-week training
course, since a total of $626.4 million is being transferred from TSA to ICE.
While this funding exceeds the $545 million that the Service received for
fiscal year 2003, it is not clear how much of the funding will be allocated
for training. Given the importance of training to ensure that air marshals
are prepared to carry out their mission, we believe that maintaining
adequate funding for training should remain a priority. Additionally,
should reductions in the funding for training be required, our recent work
on strategic training and development efforts provides alternatives that an
agency can consider to across-the-board cuts—such as evaluating training
needs, setting training priorities, developing alternative training
requirement scenarios, and determining how much funding each of these
scenarios would require. Our work further suggests that it is important
for agencies to ensure that their training and development efforts are cost
effective, given the anticipated benefits and to incorporate measures that
can be used to demonstrate contributions that training and development
programs make to improve results. These principles are applicable at all
times, but especially when funds are limited. Determining whether air
marshals with prior law enforcement experience have the same training
needs as those without such experience could help set cost-effective
training priorities.
We found that a cornerstone of human capital management is the ability to
successfully acquire, develop, and retain talent. Investing in and enhancing
the value of employees through training and development is a crucial part
of addressing this challenge. This investment can include not only formal
and on-the-job-training but also other opportunities, such as rotational
assignments. Our work further specifies that agencies should link their
training curriculum to the competencies needed for them to accomplish
their mission. The Service has begun developing a formal training
curriculum beyond the basic and advanced training courses described
above.

This curriculum requires air marshals to participate in 5 days of
recurrent training each quarter that, in addition to the quarterly weapons
qualification, includes training in advanced firearms, operational tactics,
defensive tactics, surveillance detection, emergency medicine, physical
fitness, and legal and administrative elements. Additionally, the Service is
developing rotational assignments for air marshals that allow them to
participate in law enforcement task forces, as well as fill a variety of
operational and training positions in headquarters and the field. The
Service recognizes that such opportunities can not only enhance
professional development but also help to prevent problems such as
boredom and burnout. According to the Secretary of Homeland Security,
one of the advantages of the Service’s transfer to ICE is that it will
enhance air marshals’ professional development opportunities.
 
Last edited:
The statement was "highest level of protection" provided by the government to ordinary citizens, not a general statement comparing government provided to self provided protection. Since you disagreed with the statement, could you please explain what higher level of protection the government provides to ordinary citizens?
Do you want to win a peeing contest? Good! You just did.

I honestly don't GAF all that much about any fed.gov alphabet soup agency. They all suck and most have no constitutional basis to exist.
 
Do you want to win a peeing contest? Good! You just did.---jose
Rob B. asked a legitimate question in a measured and respectful manor. The question simply asked you to defend your statement.


jkelly
 
I didn't intend to get into a pissing contest, and I'm not even certain Jose is wrong in his conclusions regarding the issue under discussion - I certainly don't have enough facts to make a qualified generalizable judgement.

I believe that discussions of issues should be based on logical constructs and rational discourse, not ad hominem attacks or proof by assertion. I focused my comments on such logical elements.

If I told you that McMurdo station was not the coldest place on the planet and you said "no, it isn't", it would not be unreasonable for me to ask you to back up your claim by telling me of a colder place. Or, you could accuse me of entering into a pissing contest by asking the question. Which reaction do you think would be indicative of polite rational discourse?
 
Guys
It is time to end this discussion.
I thought that we are were adults and able to
have a discussion, without turning it into a pissing contest.
I was wrong.
 
Okay. I give up. There will be a pissing contest, Now, we have to set up the rules, and, of course, the place, time, and date. I have asked ken Maurer to head up this effort
We also have to decide on the contest categories such as distance(s), accuracy, etc..
I have asked Mike Nastek to head up this effort.

I am sure that both Ken and Mike will keep you posted about their progress and any diffuculties that may surface.
 
Back
Top Bottom